There is a very interesting longitudinal study of families done by Otago University on the issue of domestic violence.

I should preface these extracts by saying that when it comes to the most severe forms of domestic violence – being killed or maimed by your partner or ex-partner, its is clear that this happens to women, by men, far more often. But what does the Otago study find for overall domestic violence:

There were no significant differences between males and females in terms of reported IPV victimization. The mean victimization score for females was 2.12 (SD = 2.91) compared to the mean of 2.28 (SD = 2.71) for males (p > .40). However, there was a significant difference between males and females in terms of reported IPV perpetration, such that females reported higher levels of IPV perpetration. The mean perpetration score for females was 2.15 (SD = 2.26), compared to a mean of 1.66 (SD = 2.04) for males (p < .01).

That’s what you call an inconvenient fact.

In terms of the CTS victimization subscale measures, 11.3% of males and 7.3% of females reported being exposed to minor physical assault; 7.7% of males and 3.4% of females reported severe physical assault; 65.7% of males and 66.1% of females reported minor psychological aggression; and 15.4% of males and 9.2% of females reported severe psychological aggression. For the CTS perpetration subscale measures, 6.7% of males and 5.5% of females reported committing minor physical assault; 2.8% of males and 3.2% of females reported severe physical assault; 56.7% of males and 68.7% of females reported minor psychological aggression; and 6.9% of males and 9.2% of females reported severe psychological aggression.

So males are more likely to suffer a severe physical assault.

Now the reality is that most men and stronger than most women, and the impact of a serious physical assault can be both physically and psychologically more damaging, even terrifying for a woman. So this paper doesn’t minimise the horrendous impact on women, of serious assaults. It just establishes that domestic violence is far from exclusively something men do to women – in fact 90% of those who get victimised by domestic violence, also perpetrate it, according to this study. Now that is not 100%, and many people suffer domestic violence, who never ever engage in it itself. But the study shows they are the exception, not the rule.

The report authors conclude:

All research into IPV is conducted against the backdrop of what Dutton (Dutton, 1994; Dutton & Nicholls, 2005) has described as “the feminist paradigm” (p. 682). This model, which dominates public discourse about domestic violence, views violence through a gendered lens that centers around the assumptions that: (a) most domestic violence involves male perpetrators and female victims; (b) female violence is defensive and reactive; and (c) the causes of domestic violence reflect the values of patriarchal social structures in which violence is used to control women and limit their opportunities (e.g. Bograd, 1988; Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly, 1992; Johnson, 1995).

While this model has been highly influential in setting the directions of domestic violence policy, it is almost completely discrepant with the findings of this and a growing number of studies.

They point out:

While population survey data have tended to suggest an absence of gender differences, official data tend to suggest a predominance of male perpetrators and female victims. Reconciling these differences is central to a balanced understanding of the issues of IPV. The most straightforward resolution of the evidence is to suggest that, while males and females appear to be equally predisposed to domestic violence, because of greater male strength and capacity for aggression, males predominate in the more extreme cases of IPV represented in officially recorded statistics

None of the above should take away from the reality that too many men do commit domestic violence, and as a society we should make domestic violence as socially unacceptable as drink driving now is. That is what David Cunliffe very clumsily was trying to say a couple of days ago.

But apologising for being a man, was both stupid (you apologise for what you do, not for what you are), but also missing the wider picture of domestic violence.

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 8th, 2014 at 7:00 am and is filed under New Zealand, NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

I had a good example of this several months ago. One of my farm staff was given two black eyes and had the windows of his farm house smashed by his wife after she had been drunk all weekend.
This was the first time I was made aware of what was happening between the two of them but the one way agro had been happening for months.

The difference was being a guy he had no one to talk to about it until it got so bad he had no choice. Not to mention the mental abuse that went along with it (especially after the casket of cheap wine had been drunk) accusing him of sleeping with one of the farm workers, and then verbally abusing him for not giving her enough money (After she quit her job to go full time drinking)

After I got the Police involved she left but then proceeded to further torment him by telling all and sundry that he had another girlfriend, and it was all his fault that they broke up. And then alternating this with begging him to take her back with offers of sex etc.

I had a friend who was getting assaulted by his wife. But he wouldn’t leave without the children because he was afraid that she’d turn on them next, particularly the eldest who was from a previous relationship of hers so he’d never get custody easily.

Domestic Violence is a complex problem and if it were able to solved by Government then it would be eradicated over time. But the simplist thing is to educate people that what happens early in the relationship tends to amplify later on – heed the warning signs.

This is one of the most disturbing aspects of Cunnliffe’s apology. It perpetrates the myth that domestic violence is almost exclusively a male issue and further demonises men. In that regard it plays nicely into the hands of the feminists who have been trotting out that line for years.

What should be recognised is that he stated that it was an overwhelmingly male problem which further highlights that he pulls stuff out of his arse and presents them as facts whereas there is no evidence to support his contention.

Far from apologising for being a man, he should apologise for being a pawn in the feminist agenda to destroy relationships and deconstruct the traditional family unit.

I’ve been banging on and quoting this and other studies for years but at least 50% of the population simply can’t take it in.. they’ve been brain washed for too long.

Same thing happens with false rape complaints.. people simply don’t want to believe anything but the mantra that only a tiny fraction lie about it. I used to have about 30 studies and police and media reports bookmarked that show false rape claims might be anywhere between 15 and 50% of all claims. The US and NZ seem to have major problems in this area but neither has any real record of the women being prosecuted for the damage they cause.

In the US the Innocence Project has some truly appalling cases where (mainly) Black men have been imprisioned for decades yet DNA tests prove conclusively that they couldn’t have been the offenders.

Are there any other studies on the topic done in this country? I have been aware of numerous overseas studies that showed very similar results, but this seems to be a topic no-one in this country will touch, leaving us with only police arrest statistics to go off, which obviously do not give the real picture.

“The typical image of a battered woman is a heterosexual woman attempting to hide a black eye in the grocery store. But domestic violence does not just happen to straight couples. Domestic violence statistics show that violence is just as prevalent in gay and lesbian relationships as it is in heterosexual couples. In fact, 30% of couples struggle with domestic violence of some sort.”

So, is this a violence problem or an alcohol problem? The report fails to address that.

And, I wonder what the definition of severe would be? Surely women are much less physically capable of inflicting the same level of severe violence? I would not consider a black eye as ‘severe’ for example. But, cutting someone with a knife requiring stitches is severe.

I just find it difficult to believe the women commit an equal amount of severe violence as men. They just aren’t physically as capable.

This is very poor grammar, as I can see two interpretations of this statement, mostly because the first statistic explicitly says “reported committing” while the second statement specifically does not.

So is this saying 2.8% of males and 3.2% of females committed severe physical assault – since that is the qualifier in the first statistic?

Or is this saying 2.8% of males and 3.2% of females were victims of severe physical assault – since the word “committed” is omitted?

The outward sign of an injury often indicates little about the potential severity of the injuries.

I remember a case of domestic abuse where the male perpetrator would hold a phone book against his partner’s head and punch that. This was deliberately so that there would be no outward sign of any injury, but inflicted repeated brain damage.

A black eye suggests a strike to the head. It could be minor and superficial. Or there could also be a cracked or broken eye socket, a damaged eye, or brain damage. Or all of those.

My neighbor had an altercation with his defacto as a result she smashed him on the head with a piece of wood.
He then rang the police to try to get her removed from his house.
Result was he spent the night in a cell and was charged with man assaults woman.
The law as it stands and its focus on the myth that it is all the males fault is obscene.
Many woman will assault a man until he retaliates then claim he is the abuser.
Personally any assault is unacceptable.
I was engage to a woman who started using violence in arguments just a punch or slap that didn’t really hurt
She was warned that I find any violence totally unacceptable if she continued to hit me I would terminate the relationship. She thought that because I was a male and far stronger it was OK as long as I didn’t hit back.
The third time it happened I broke up with her.
This culture of its ok for a woman but not for a man is common . You see it on tv, in adds and at the movies all the time. A man says something wrong and gets a slap is projected as normal . This attitude is unacceptable

Lindsay Mitchell put up some interesting figures that relates to the marriage issue.

The “For The Sake Of Our Children Trust” identified 58 child murders since 1990.. here’s a part of what they found:

“Based on the 58 known cases listed, 51 cases identified child’s biological parents were NOT married. The perpetrator responsible for the death indicated 27 of the deaths tabulated had a ‘stepfather’ or ‘boyfriend/partner of the mother being responsible or part responsible for the child’s death.
The remaining figures for the perpetrator was indicated the mother or relative of the child or unknown.Many of the children killed were of Maori descent with 35 cases indicating ethnicity of child . The question New Zealanders need to ask is ‘What are our Maori Leaders doing about these staggering statistics?

…The research was unable to provide evidence of welfare dependency of parent(s) as this information is not stated in most of the cases. The Trust stands steadfast on its assumption that for many of the children born into a single parent home or an environment where their parents were not married is associated to long term welfare dependency, hence undermining marriage and breaking up families”.

Lindsay’s comment was:

“A fair assumption given that around 87 percent of children who have contact with CYF appear in the benefit system very early in their lives.”

In the US I’ve seen reports on avoiding poverty and its associated problems which boil down to two things:

1. Get married
2. Stay married.

This obviously doesn’t have much relevance for the many people with fair education and prospects who have no problems being just partners and having kids but its a damned useful bit of advice for many of life’s “battlers” as Mike Moore used to call them.

I think when women use physical violence, because of the strength difference, they are more likely to use a weapon of some sort, and also attack without restraint.

Whilst when men use physical violence on women, they are usually in an irrational state, but many that I have dealt with, still recall using partial restraint in many such situations – however, obviously still cause damage a great deal of the time.

Whilst the report deals with psychological abuse – I would like to see the role of ‘manipulation’ addressed. We can all be guilty of using this as a tool, women are particularly astute at employing it.

When working with offenders, it was particularly noticeable the number that had been placed in impossible situations due to the manipulation of others (particularly females). For example, being fathers when they did not want to be, or were ready to be, being forced to complete a financial transaction, such as purchasing a home, that they knew they were unable to repay and so on. All to often this type of behaviour sat at the core of subsequent offending.

Or a straight problem. Unfortunately, and while I agree with Cunliffe that partner abusers are scum, while most of them are straight male scumballs, there are also some lesbian and gay scumballs who hit their partners because unfortunately, sexual orientation and coming out don’t mean that abusive and dysfunctional family upbringings get magically unlearnt. At its core, though, Cunliffe said the right thing- which is that men need to take responsibility for spousal violence (and abusive lesbians, in the case of toxic same-sex relationships). And before anyone asks, same-sex domestic violence has been a criminal offence in New Zealand since 1995.

Gosh – I wonder if this topic would now be under discussion – had Labour Leader David Cunliffe not attended the Women’s Refuge Symposium on violence against women and children and made his now famous (albeit largely taken out of context) statement that he was sorry for being a man RIGHT NOW? At last this issue is getting the public attention and debate it deserves. About time. Penny Bright

Guys and girls, I’ve been wanting to do something about this, so I wrote up a petition. In 99.9% of instances where people go to family court, the woman ends up with the house and the children. With this comes along the idea, of lets make men look like the problem. If the woman is part of the problem, then there is no justification, for the woman getting the house and child 99.9% of the time.

Constantly demonising men, is how they will continue to do so. This petition puts things in balance. Before the DPB existed, when you received something from the government it was not a gift. In the great depression they explained government assistance, that you will pay it back with income tax. The original social security act of 1938, explained that when you pay income tax, it gets recorded in one side of the ledger. When you receive something it comes out of the other side of the ledger. And when you retire you get the balance. So if somebody received $300,000 in state assistance, including public education, but paid $500,000 in income tax, they would have $200,000 in their retirement. People would only go to the government in an emergency.

But before they brought out the DPB, they had to change it to as long as those who are willing to work, work, everybody gets state assistance. Without that change, their would have been no DPB. So this petition basically says if someone splits, to look after the child. The state will pay for their living expenses, but the person receiving the money, will have to wait longer for their pension. The other person will still contribute in child support but only for the child. If we can implement this it will take out the moral hazard of being a single parent at other people’s expense. The most powerful part of this petition, is the explanation side explains why the family court almost always rules in the mother’s favour. Just them knowing, that you know why, will make a huge impact.

Over the last few years of that nice Mr Key its been easy to forget that National hates women as much as they do darkies, non christians, the poor, gays and foreigners, but the last 5 days has been an rather unpleasant reminder of that for both myself and many female friends, thanks guys.

So, National, by not prostrating itself at the alter of radical feminism, hates women? I think possibly the only ones they may look down on are the hard of thinking, such as yourself. You know, people knew what it meant when Julia Gillard had her big ‘misogyny’ meltdown. It meant she didn’t have a single substantive argument at that point, but felt she should be given a free pass because vagina. What makes you think your pathetic attempt isn’t just as obvious?

Over the last few years of that nice Mr Key its been easy to forget that National hates women as much as they do darkies, non christians, the poor, gays and foreigners, but the last 5 days has been an rather unpleasant reminder of that for both myself and many female friends, thanks guys.

That supposedly intelligent critique of a government that overwhelmingly supported the passage of the Marriage Equality Bill!

Like folks who criticise Obama must invariably do so because they are racists?! Either that or the real bigotry is in the hearts and minds of those conducting the ideological witch hunt.

So much for Martin Luther King’s dream that people would be judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.

Oh, how I despise the divisiveness and sheer vindictiveness of the trouble-merchants of radical dialectic analysis, peddling their hard-core varieties of Marxism, Feminism, Ethnic and LGBT studies.

Now the bigotry lies within the high priesthood sitting in judgement of political ideology.

There was once a glass wall that protected women. It could be loosely described as chivalry, or manners. Feminists and their lame male enablers unknowingly indoctrinated with Marxist political ideology smashed that glass wall. The mess we see today is the result.

Interesting how noone really debates the substance of what he had to say. You would all rather just concentrate on a meaningless line from a speech to an audience who is clearly not you.

Kinda pathetic really and not even funny.

All of which highlights the ineptitude of the one who originally said it and mixed the message. Don’t blame the hearers! And all the more reason to vote for competence on September 20, including when it comes to the matter of staying on focus in the matter of domestic violence. What is the point of giving the national bully pulpit to a leader who mangles the script?!

A lot of the political discussion about domestic violence seems to be being led by people of book-learning who have little real idea what they are talking about.

For their benefit, here’s my Being a Man 101:

➡ You don’t hit or shove your wife or your kids.

➡ If your wife hits or shoves you, she’ll probably be sorry later. They are emotional, hormonal creatures. So you harden TF up, and accept this, and weather the storm, because nobody else is going to do it for you, and the alternatives are probably even worse.

Clare Robinson blogged about her take on Cunlife’s “sorry for being a man” speech:

If it wasn’t laughable, it would be a great first line in a bad romance novel…“Can I begin by saying I’m sorry,” he said.

What is in character, however, and is the most plausible scenario, is that he walked into that room and immediately recognized he was a fish out of water. His fight or flight brain jumped to the conclusion that he was talking to a group of hostile man-haters (stereotypical assumption when confronted by a bunch of feminists).

To reassure that he had come in peace he instinctively dialed up a number of clichés from his study of American political behaviour, and in one fell swoop conflated Kennedy’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” remark (down-with-the-homies), with the political apology that American politicians frequently use when they have done something wrong and need to appear vulnerably human and remorseful.

It wasn’t a genuine apology; it was a cliché’d response to his own personal discomfort. Which is why so many felt that it lacked authenticity and sincerity, and why it came across as insulting. It is yet another example of the yawning gap that exists between the real David and what uncontrollably falls out of his mouth.

If David had come in authentically saying, I’m feeling like a fish out of water, forgive me for not being an expert in this area, but we have been consulting with real experts and I hope you will agree that Labour’s new policy is going to go some way towards dealing with sexual and family violence, he would have been credible and convincing.

And he would not have potentially offended a lot of the male voters he needs to stave off disaster in the polls. Can I end by saying that his comment is going to come back and haunt him in the campaign.

I caught an x-partners hand once when she was trying to hit me. The force I grabbed her wrist with made her cry …. generally woman hitting men is pretty funny – hard to imagine it ever justifies anything more than just defending yourself by stopping them from actually hitting you – IMHO anyone using this as an excuse for hitting back is justifying something they should have never done – ever.

But having said that, I’ve also see a woman punch a man to the ground and in a dojo once I was knocked out briefly fighting a woman. So … yeah – anything can happen when men or woman loose their tempers !

If you look at the link it will explain to you why 99.9% of the time the woman gets the house and the children. It explains to you how this whole violence thing is just a cover. No matter who’s at fault the only thing the court cares about is someone will look after the child, and someone will pay up. That’s unfair, so to make it look fair, they have to make men look bad. This petition will change that. The explanation is based on a court case, and when these MPs find out that we know, they will be scared, and they will take action. If this goes through, it means a marriage split will no longer hit just the man’s pocket. And that will make sure that marriage splits happen only in an emergency. It will cost both people.

“Over the last few years of that nice Mr Key its been easy to forget that National hates women as much as they do darkies, non christians, the poor, gays and foreigners, but the last 5 days has been an rather unpleasant reminder of that for both myself and many female friends, thanks guys.”

Oh dear.

I vote National. Apart from one election when I voted ACT, I have voted National since Jim Bolger was the leader.

And I’m a foreigner, half Native American, and married to a Ngai Tahu girl, who also votes National.

But hey, don’t let reality get in the way of your PC ranting. Lefties never do!

Hi Meatloaf of course I remember you good luck with the petition. I tried to make our politicians stand up and take notice of the countless travesties of justice endured by men who find themselves as respondents in a vicious anti male gender bias Family Court. I have enough paper work from Ministers and other establishment types I could wall paper a three bedroom home. Amanda and Nigel from the Darklands show couldn’t believe how much I tried to expose a sinister and very sick Family Court gravy train. I want to write a book, but I have children best interests in my heart and the time is not right yet.

Hi dad4justice. What I’m talking about is common law vs contract law. When you use the road, and get a license, you surrender your common law rights. Common law means if you go through the red, and nobody gets hurt, then no harm. But for everybody’s safety they create a license, and say you can only use the roads if you use the roads safely. So if you go through the red light, you haven’t driven safely. Every contract you sign takes away your rights, in return for privileges.

Before the license, it was I now pronounce you man and wife. During that time if their was a split, the man kept what belonged to him. But when the state created the license that changed. Husband in a law dictionary means housebound. So if you split, hey wait a minute you are bound to your houses needs. So you need to support your wife and children. And the wife needs to look after the children.

It doesn’t matter what you or her have done. If there is a split, the child will be taken care of, and that’s all the state cares about. When the license was created, what you signed went into the marriage registry, meaning the government has a say. Now if people find out about this, they will simply put without prejudice on their license, and go to the marriage registry and say I was under duress when I signed it, and being under duress makes the contract null and void. Do they want people doing that, no way?

So the family court needs to make themselves look just, and make the trial look fair, so people won’t catch on. But I already did. So exposing the contract side of it, is what the petition is all about. People will demand change, and they will try to find a new way of doing things. Domestic violence is not a common law crime, if it were people would be locked up. Instead its about you pay up, which means somebody hasn’t kept their side of the contract.

Anyhow, I’ll be back later on tonight, if you want to continue, this stream. This is how it is a contract, if you don’t believe me:

Sorry RRM & Scott Chris,
Your experiences are just your own, and not generalisable to all cases by any means. The plural of anecdote is not “data”.
People do cherry pick studies to suit their own ideology, but studies such as those in the OP are peer reviewed and supported by an increasing amount of follow-up research. Speaking personally, I for one am relieved that the myth of domestic violence as a “male problem alone” is beginning to crumble.

Oh and “questions”@ July 8th, 2014 at 10:51: You may just be trolling, or you may actually be feeling sanctimonious about this. But either way – you’re on the wrong side of history.